Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

Vice President Dick Cheney was interviewed tonight on Larry King Live. In it, he confirmed that Alberto Gonzales lied last week to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Below is the exchange between Larry King and Dick Cheney:

Q Moving on to other areas. Alberto Gonzales — do you stand by him?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I do. Al is a good man, a good friend, in a difficult assignment.

Q Are you troubled by what appears to have happened — the appearance of him not telling the truth?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I don’t want to get into the specifics with respect to his testimony and the questions that were asked. I know Al on a personal and professional basis, and I hold him in high regard.

Q You’re going to stand by him?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, sir.

Q No doubt about that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Correct.

Q In that regard, The New York Times — which, as you said, is not your favorite — reports it was you who dispatched Gonzales and Andy Card to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft’s hospital in 2004 to push Ashcroft to certify the President’s intelligence-gathering program. Was it you?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don’t recall — first of all, I haven’t seen the story. And I don’t recall that I gave instructions to that effect.

Q That would be something you would recall.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I would think so. But certainly I was involved because I was a big advocate of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, and had been responsible and working with General Hayden and George Tenet to get it to the President for approval. By the time this occurred, it had already been approved about 12 times by the Department of Justice. There was nothing new about it.

Q So you didn’t send them to get permission.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don’t recall that I was the one who sent them to the hospital. [Emphasis added by me.]

Larry King was asking Dick Cheney about "the President’s intelligence-gathering program". In response, Cheney confirmed that by the time the hospital confrontation occurred, "it" had been approved 12 times by the DOJ and there was "nothing new about it". The "it" being the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" as Cheney makes clear in the preceding sentence, even though Larry King had referred to it as "the President’s intelligence-gathering program". There you have it: confirmation from the Vice President of the United States that Gonzo confronted Ashcroft about the "Terrorist Surveillance Program".

In last week’s testimony, Gonzo claimed that the "dissent" and the subject of the hospital bed confrontation with Ashcroft was not about the "Terrorist Surveillance Program":

“The dissent related to other intelligence activities,” Gonzales testified at Tuesday’s hearing. “The dissent was not about the terrorist surveillance program.”

“Not the TSP?” responded Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y. “Come on. If you say it’s about other, that implies not. Now say it or not.”

“It was not,” Gonzales answered. “It was about other intelligence activities.”  [Emphasis added by me.]

Now, the man who apparently sent Gonzo on his late night errand is directly contradicting him. Time to resign, Gonzo.

[UPDATE (7/31/2007 10:50 PM): I cross-posted at the Daily Kos. The diary has hit the recommended list and there is a lively comment thread.]

[Update 2: TPMMuckraker has now picked up on Cheney’s little admission. Hopefully, the MSM will follow…]

Today the New York Times reports on the dispute in 2004 that led Alberto Gonzalies to rush to Attorney General John Ashcroft’s hospital room to intimidate a sedated and sick man. The Times explains Gonzalies’ lies:

A 2004 dispute over the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance program that led top Justice Department officials to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases, according to current and former officials briefed on the program.

…

Mr. Gonzales insisted before the Senate this week that the 2004 dispute did not involve the Terrorist Surveillance Program “confirmed” by President Bush, who has acknowledged eavesdropping without warrants but has never acknowledged the data mining.

If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales’ defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct. [Emphasis added by me.]

The Times is giving Gonzalies too much credit. It is true that Gonzalies tried to parse carefully to try and give the impression that there was no dissent about the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program", but he did not parse to separate data mining from eavesdropping. He initially tried to parse to separate the "program" from its "operational aspects", but lost his way last week and may have dug his hole deeper.

To understand this, let’s review Gonzalies’ public statements and testimony on the matter.

On December 17, 2005 George W. Bush publicly acknowledged during his radio address the existence of a NSA program to eavesdrop on calls to and from the United States. The program had previously been leaked to the New York Times. Mr. Bush said:

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.

The following Monday, on December 19, Alberto Gonzalies and General Michael Hayden briefed reporters at the White House about the NSA program. At the beginning of the briefing Gonzalies made this very important statement about what he was to discuss:

The President confirmed the existence of a highly classified program on Saturday. The program remains highly classified; there are many operational aspects of the program that have still not been disclosed and we want to protect that because those aspects of the program are very, very important to protect the national security of this country. So I’m only going to be talking about the legal underpinnings for what has been disclosed by the President. [Emphasis added by me.]

It is clear from Gonzalies’ statement that operational aspects of the program, such as data mining as described by the New York Times today and earlier revealed by the USA Today, are part of the NSA program, and not part of another program.

During the same briefing, a reporter asked Gonzalies about the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Council’s (OLC) legal rationale for this NSA program. Gonzalies side-stepped the question:

Q Judge Gonzales, will you release then, for the reasons you’re saying now, the declassified versions of the legal rationale for this from OLC? And if not, why not? To assure the American public that this was done with the legal authority that you state.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: We’re engaged now in a process of educating the American people, again, and educating the Congress. We’ll make the appropriate evaluation at the appropriate time as to whether or not additional information needs to be provided to the Congress or the American people.

Q You declassified OLC opinions before, after the torture — why not do that here to show, yes, we went through a process?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I’m not confirming the existence of opinions or the non-existence of opinions. I’ve offered up today our legal analysis of the authorities of this President.

We of course learned earlier this year from former Deputy Attorney General James Comey that the OLC had raised serious objections about the NSA program.

Gonzalies was asked specifically about Comey’s and the OLC’s objections to the program by Senator Chuck Schumer during a February 6, 2006 appearance in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. At this hearing Gonzalies parsed his words very carefully in order to give the impression that no such objections existed about the "program". It is also worth noting that Gonzalies was not under oath at this hearing after Arlen Specter, then Chairman, refused requests by Senators to have Gonzalies under oath. Following is the relevant exchange between Schumer and Gonzalies:

SCHUMER: I concede all those points. Let me ask you about some specific reports.

It’s been reported by multiple news outlets that the former number two man in the Justice Department, the premier terrorism prosecutor, Jim Comey, expressed grave reservations about the NSA program and at least once refused to give it his blessing. Is that true?

GONZALES: Senator, here’s the response that I feel that I can give with respect to recent speculation or stories about disagreements.

There has not been any serious disagreement — and I think this is accurate — there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations which I cannot get into.

I will also say…

SCHUMER: But there was some — I’m sorry to cut you off — but there was some dissent within the administration. And Jim Comey did express, at some point — that’s all I asked you — some reservations.

GONZALES: The point I want to make is that, to my knowledge, none of the reservations dealt with the program that we’re talking about today. They dealt with operational capabilities that we’re not talking about today.

SCHUMER: I want to ask you, again, about — we have limited time.

GONZALES: Yes, sir.

SCHUMER: It’s also been reported that the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, respected lawyer and professor at Harvard Law School, expressed reservations about the program. Is that true?

GONZALES: Senator, rather than going individual by individual, let me just say that I think the differing views that have been the subject of some of these stories did not deal with the program that I’m here testifying about today.

SCHUMER: But you were telling us that none of these people expressed any reservations about the ultimate program, is that right?

GONZALES: Senator, I want to be very careful here, because, of course, I’m here only testifying about what the president has confirmed.

And with respect to what the president has confirmed, I do not believe that these DOJ officials that you’re identifying had concerns about this program. [Emphasis added by me.]

Gonzalies again drew the distinction between "operational capabilities" and the "program". In his opening statement he made clear that his responses would not address "operational details" of the NSA program:

Before going any further, I should make clear what I can discuss today. I am here to explain the department’s assessment that the president’s terrorist surveillance program is consistent with our laws and the Constitution.

I’m not here to discuss the operational details of that program or any other classified activity.

The president has described the terrorist surveillance program in response to certain leaks, and my discussion in this open forum must be limited to those facts the president has publicly confirmed: nothing more.

Many operational details of our intelligence activities remain classified and unknown to our enemy. And it is vital that they remain so. [Emphasis added by me.]

So far, Gonzalies was side-stepping dissent about the NSA program by creating two artificial buckets - one bucket that was the description of the NSA program, and another bucket that was all the operational aspects of the program. By conveniently pushing all dissent into the "operational" bucket he had created the illusion that the "program", that is the description of the program (perhaps just the name), had not been the subject of serious dissent. Mr. Comey, however, in his May 2007 testimony clearly described significant dissent at the Department of Justice, testimony that has since been confirmed by FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Alberto Gonzalies however parsed a little too far last week when he testified that the "dissent related to other intelligence activities" and not the "terrorist surveillance program". Gone is the distinction between "operational aspects" and the "program" - he is now under oath asserting that what Comey testified to, what Director Mueller testified to, and what the Negroponte memo cited, were not about the "terrorist surveillance program" or "operational aspects" of the program, but belonged outside the program altogether. In doing so, he has lost the fine line that he had created and was walking in his earlier public statements and testimony about the NSA program. In last week’s testimony, he failed to stick to the strict parsing that he had maintained for more than a year and a half. In parsing in a different direction, he has undermined his previous parsing.

Alberto Gonzalies may have just parsed himself out of a job. However, to be fair to Alberto Gonzalies, he has only been the Attorney General and not privy to the "operational aspects" of the Attorney General program - or, to be more precise, other attorney general activities. So, although there has been dissent about the "operational aspects" of the attorney general, would it be fair to say that the attorney general should be fired?

 [Note: The image above is from today’s New York Times article. Interestingly, the image file is named "gonzo600.jpg".]

We are witnessing historic events in Washington. It is now indisputable that the Attorney General of the United States has perjured himself. It is now only a matter of time before Alberto Gonzales is forced to resign for his lying, dissembling and obfuscations. It is also now very likely that the chief law enforcement officer of the United States may himself be guilty of serious crimes.

FBI Director Robert Mueller, at a hearing in front of the House Judiciary Committee, directly contradicted Gonzo’s sworn testimony from Tuesday:

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III has contradicted the sworn testimony of his boss, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, by telling Congress that a prominent warrantless surveillance program was the subject of a dramatic legal debate within the Bush administration.

Mueller’s testimony appears to mark the first public confirmation from a Bush administration official that the National Security Agency’s Terrorist Surveillance Program was at issue in an unusual nighttime visit by Gonzales to the hospital bedside of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, then under sedation and recovering from surgery.

Mueller’s remarks to the House Judiciary Committee about that contentious meeting differed from testimony earlier in the week from Gonzales, who told a Senate panel that a legal disagreement aired at the hospital did not concern the NSA program. Details of the program, kept secret for four years, were confirmed by President Bush in December 2005, provoking wide controversy on Capitol Hill.

"The discussion was on a national–an NSA program that has been much discussed, yes," Mueller said in response to a question from Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas). Mueller also told another lawmaker that he had serious reservations about the warrantless wiretapping program.

Director Mueller has also in his possession notes that he took to document the March 10, 2004 showdown in then Attorney General John Ashcroft’s hospital room. The director said that he took the notes because the episode was "out of the ordinary."

Gonzo’s lies began to unravel after former Deputy Attorney General James Comey provided dramatic testimony of Gonzo’s late night visit to the hospital to try and take advantage of a very sick man. It is a story worthy of mob movies like The Godfather. Yet, it was then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales that was behaving in mafia-like fashion, quite likely at the direction of the President or Vice President of the United States. Today Gonzo is finally being held to account for his thuggish behavior.

This walking embarrassment to the Department of Justice must resign.

Below is James Comey’s dramatic testimony:

Below are relevant parts of FBI Director Robert Mueller’s testimony from earlier today:

Yesterday the Attorney General of the United States testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Today we find out that a US government document contradicts Gonzo’s sworn testimony. In other words, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States perjured himself:

Documents indicate eight congressional leaders were briefed about the Bush administration’s terrorist surveillance program on the eve of its expiration in 2004, contradicting sworn Senate testimony this week by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

…

Gonzales, who was then serving as counsel to Bush, testified that the White House Situation Room briefing sought to inform congressional leaders about the pending expiration of the unidentified program and Justice Department objections to renew it. Those objections were led by then-Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey, who questioned the program’s legality.

“The dissent related to other intelligence activities,” Gonzales testified at Tuesday’s hearing. “The dissent was not about the terrorist surveillance program.”

“Not the TSP?” responded Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y. “Come on. If you say it’s about other, that implies not. Now say it or not.”

“It was not,” Gonzales answered. “It was about other intelligence activities.”

A four-page memo from the national intelligence director’s office says the White House briefing with the eight lawmakers on March 10, 2004, was about the terror surveillance program, or TSP.

The memo, dated May 17, 2006, and addressed to then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, details “the classification of the dates, locations, and names of members of Congress who attended briefings on the Terrorist Surveillance Program,” wrote then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte. [Emphasis added by me]

The "Terrorist Surveillance Program" did not come about until January 22, 2006, when it was coined by the White House - as late as January 4, 2006 the White House was calling the NSA program "the program to detect and prevent terrorist attacks". The memo that contradicts Gonzo was written on May 17, 2006. On March 10, 2004 the domestic spying program was not known as the "terrorist surveillance program".

On January 24, 2006 George W. Bush said the following at Kansas State University as the White House launched a propaganda campaign to brand the program the "Terrorist Surveillance Program":

Let me talk about one other program — and then I promise to answer questions — something that you’ve been reading about in the news lately. It’s what I would call a terrorist surveillance program. [Emphasis added by me.]

So, Gonzo’s defense will be this: the program during the meeting on March 10, 2004 was not the "terrorist surveillance program". When the program was modified to accommodate the dissent from Jim Comey and others after March 10, 2004 and then approved by the Department of Justice, it came to be known as the "terrorist surveillance program". So, technically Senator, he was not "lying".

Then Gonzo’s pants will burst into fire.

This man is a national disgrace. Behold the attorney general of the United States testifying today in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It’s time to resign.

Gonzo as Miracle Max:

Gonzo cannot recall deciding to send a man to his death:

Gonzo becomes self-aware:

Gonzo sets a new standard for crime and punishment:

Gonzo gets an FBI escort:

Gonzo as errand-boy:

Gonzo clarifies his clarification:

Gonzo as Donald Trump:

Gonzo gives the Vice President broadband access to the DOJ:

"I know it was you Fredo. You broke my heart. You broke my heart!"

- Michael Corleane, The Godfather: Part II

Washington DC is all abuzz with the rumor that Alberto Gonzales will resign this evening. Normally I don’t do rumors but this one is too juicy to pass up. It does make a certain amount of sense since he is about to be on the receiving end of a "no confidence" vote in the Senate and quite possibly in the House next week. But then again, this White House is in deep bunker mode and there is no reason for them to toss Gonzo out of the bunker.

In case you missed it, Gonzo’s credibility is at zero after James Comey’s riveting testimony earlier this week.

I’m heading home to make some pop corn.

Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified yesterday about Mr. Gonzales’s late night visit to the hospital to convince an ailing attorney general John Ashcroft to sign off on Mr. Bush’s domestic wiretapping plan which the Justice Department had already deemed illegal. It was riveting testimony. There is not much I can add to Mr. Comey’s testimony in this post. My best advice is that you watch the entirety of it - it is well worth the time.

I was reminded of the famous scene in "The Godfather" where Vito Corleone lies in the hospital unguarded and Michael Corleone rushes to save his father’s life.

To get a flavor of the kind of attorney general Alberto Gonzales is, as Alfredo points out in the comments, consider his remarks at the National Press Club soon after Paul McNulty resigned:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday that his deputy, who is resigning, was the most important player in the controversial decision about which U.S. attorneys should be fired last year.

…

"You have to remember, at the end of the day, the recommendations reflected the views of the deputy attorney general. He signed off on the names," Gonzales said. "And he would know better than anyone else, anyone in this room, anyone — again, the deputy attorney general would know best about the qualifications and the experiences of the United States attorneys community, and he signed off on the names."

Gonzales, who called McNulty’s pending departure "a loss" for the Department of Justice, said that his chief of staff had only coordinated the process of evaluating U.S. attorneys, while McNulty’s opinion "would be the most important.

"The one person I would care about would be the views of the deputy attorney general, because the deputy attorney general is the direct supervisor of the United States attorneys," Gonzales said.

Gonzales said he was reassured by McNulty as recently as March that the firings all were justified.

Gonzo. Pathetic. Worse than Watergate.

ABC News is reporting that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will resign this evening. ABC is also reporting that the White House has requested time on the major networks for a presidential address for 9pm Eastern tonight.

According to ABC News:

Sources in the White House tell ABC News that Alberto Gonzales will resign this evening. Shortly thereafter, the president will address the nation at prime time. There is speculation within the White House that the president will also ask some of his senior advisors to resign. Earlier today White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten was observed entering the White House with other staff members to attend what appeared to be a hastily organized meeting.

Attempts to contact the Justice Department and the Attorney General for comment were unsuccessful.

The Washington Post is also reporting that the White House search for a replacement for Alberto Gonzales has been successful. It is likely that the President will announce the replacement during his prime time speech tonight:

The White House has been searching since the U.S. attorneys scandal broke earlier this month for a suitable candidate to replace the current attorney general, Alberto Gonzales. Late last week, sources tell the Washington Post, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten presented President Bush with three names on a "short list" of candidates. The names on the list are reported to be Solicitor General Theodore Olson, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald, and former United States Marine and interim United States Attorney for the Southern District of California Rod Majors. Multiple sources within the Oval Office have told the Washington Post that the president will nominate Rod Majors to replace Alberto Gonzales as the next attorney general.

While a Sunday announcement is unusual, it has long been rumored that Alberto Gonzales will step down. This week’s testimony of his chief-of-staff highlighted the many inconsistencies in Mr. Gonzales’s recent statements regarding Gonzogate. I hope the president moves quickly for a Senate confirmation for Mr. Majors.

I look forward to a scandal-free next two years at the Department of Justice. I hope you the reader join me in that hope. Let us all give Mr. Majors our full support as he leads the Department of Justice and this nation out from this sticky situation.

What did the Attorney General know and when did he know it?

[Visit the ever-growing Gonzopedia. Contribute a few minutes of your time and help add content to Gonzopedia.]